Kind - Revision history

Ntsékees: Adding a section about formalization and theories. If some or all of its content is deemed too technical for the main article about Kinds, it could be moved into a different page.

2024-09-30T13:27:59Z

Adding a section about formalization and theories. If some or all of its content is deemed too technical for the main article about Kinds, it could be moved into a different page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 30 September 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:

	(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|báq kato}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)		(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|báq kato}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

			== Formalization and theories ==
			There remain some open questions on the exact working and formalization of ''báq'' and kind references. For example, does ''báq'' creates a logical scope, in such a way that changing its relative order of appearance with other quantifiers would yield different meanings? In e.g. ''“bu kaqgaı jí báq kato”'', is the sometimes purported equivalency of báq with sá in stage-level slots denied, as it would mean there is a specific cat which I am not seeing? What should ''“he leqfuo báq kato áq”'' mean? Are kinds a separate ontological type?

			One possible theory may be that the slot Carlson classes are a part of syntactic type of every predicates, and that ''báq'' expressions are expanded to different quantifier expressions depending on the Carlson class of the slot the expression goes in. This would open the possibility of ''báq'' expression having their own logical scope, for the better or the worse. This would also lend itself well to binding kind instances to anaphoric expressions, allowing ''“he leqfuo báq kato áq”'' to mean ''“cats lick themselves”''.

			Another possible theory may be that Carlson classes are mere lexicosemantic properties of predicates, so that syntax would not be aware of them, and that kind references would be intensional in nature, semantically homologuous to abstract properties referred to with ''cúaq'' expressions. Under such a model, predicates accepting ''báq'' complements would be provided with intensional arguments, and what is claimed about these intensions (e.g. making claims about intension themselves as with kind-level predicates, or making claims about instances as with stage-level predicates) would be fully up to the definition of the predicates themselves. This theory of intensionality would imply that ''báq'' expression would not create a scope interacting with that of other quantifiers, and would pretty much slip below the scope of any scope-creating elements, but it may implicate that expressing ''“cats lick themselves”'' is not as straightforwards as in alternative theories. It also opens issues of ontology, with respect to whether kind expressions belong to a separate type from that of concrete individual, and whether predicates accepting both kind and individual complements manifest type polymorphism or not, for example, whether ''“sá nuo”'' can either refer to a concrete individual or a kind, which could possibly cause unexpected issues with quantification. It might however be possible to have an ontological system by which the distinction between intensions (abstract properties) and extensions (concrete instances) is removed (by claiming that individuals are actually intensional properties with a single extension), which could possibly be helpful if mere type polymorphism is found to be source of semantic troubles.

	== The typical… ==		== The typical… ==

Isı: /* Semantics */ Remove ◌̉ tone

2023-06-12T20:27:49Z

Semantics: Remove ◌̉ tone

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 12 June 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t\|báq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t\|sá}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing".		# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t\|báq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t\|sá}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing".

	(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|báq ~~kảto~~}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)		(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|báq kato}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

	== The typical… ==		== The typical… ==

El: tuzu → tuze

2023-01-17T19:18:32Z

tuzu → tuze

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 17 January 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:
	* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\forall D\colon \text{Dinosaur}(D)\right] \text{Extinct}(D)</math>. Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.		* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\forall D\colon \text{Dinosaur}(D)\right] \text{Extinct}(D)</math>. Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.
	* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".		* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".
	* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists S\colon \text{Soup}(S)\right] \text{WillMake}(\text{I}, S)</math>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref name=manifesting-a-kind />. So we say {{t\|baı jí báq ~~tuzu~~}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|sá ~~tuzu~~}}.		* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists S\colon \text{Soup}(S)\right] \text{WillMake}(\text{I}, S)</math>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref name=manifesting-a-kind />. So we say {{t\|baı jí báq tuze}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|sá tuze}}.

	So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "{{x}} makes something satisfying property {{x}}" and "The kind satisfying property {{x}} is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|lä ~~tuzu~~ ja}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbaı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.		So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "{{x}} makes something satisfying property {{x}}" and "The kind satisfying property {{x}} is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|lä tuze ja}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbaı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==

El: tuzu → tuze

2023-01-17T19:17:47Z

tuzu → tuze

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 17 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Toaq has a determiner, {{t\|báq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.		Toaq has a determiner, {{t\|báq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.

	For example, {{t\|báq ~~tuzu~~}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|sá ~~tuzu~~}} "some soup" or {{t\|tú ~~tuzu~~}} "all soup".		For example, {{t\|báq tuze}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|sá tuze}} "some soup" or {{t\|tú tuze}} "all soup".

	== Why have kinds? ==		== Why have kinds? ==

Laqme: update for Delta

2022-12-08T14:04:53Z

update for Delta

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 8 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Toaq has a ~~quantifier~~, {{t\|~~baq~~}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.		Toaq has a determiner, {{t\|báq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.

	For example, {{t\|~~baq tủzy~~}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|~~sa tủzy~~}} "some soup" or {{t\|~~tu tủzy~~}} "all soup".		For example, {{t\|báq tuzu}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|sá tuzu}} "some soup" or {{t\|tú tuzu}} "all soup".

	== Why have kinds? ==		== Why have kinds? ==
Line 7:		Line 7:
	* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\forall D\colon \text{Dinosaur}(D)\right] \text{Extinct}(D)</math>. Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.		* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\forall D\colon \text{Dinosaur}(D)\right] \text{Extinct}(D)</math>. Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.
	* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".		* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".
	* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists S\colon \text{Soup}(S)\right] \text{WillMake}(\text{I}, S)</math>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref name=manifesting-a-kind />. So we say {{t\|~~bảı~~ jí ~~baq tủzy~~}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|~~sa tủzy~~}}.		* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists S\colon \text{Soup}(S)\right] \text{WillMake}(\text{I}, S)</math>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref name=manifesting-a-kind />. So we say {{t\|baı jí báq tuzu}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|sá tuzu}}.

	So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "{{x}} makes something satisfying property {{x}}" and "The kind satisfying property {{x}} is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|~~tûzy~~ ja}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbaı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.		So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "{{x}} makes something satisfying property {{x}}" and "The kind satisfying property {{x}} is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|lä tuzu ja}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbaı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==
	When we fill an argument place with a {{t\|~~baq~~}}-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar)#Carlson_classes '''Carlson class'''] of the predicate with regards to that argument place.		When we fill an argument place with a {{t\|báq}}-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar)#Carlson_classes '''Carlson class'''] of the predicate with regards to that argument place.

	# '''Kind-level''' predicates, such as "{{x}} are extinct" and "{{x}} are widespread", just make a direct claim ''about'' the kind, rather than any individuals of it. They are usually nonsensical when filled with {{t\|sa}} or {{t\|tu}} terms.		# '''Kind-level''' predicates, such as "{{x}} are extinct" and "{{x}} are widespread", just make a direct claim ''about'' the kind, rather than any individuals of it. They are usually nonsensical when filled with {{t\|sá}} or {{t\|tú}} terms.
	# '''Individual-level''' predicates are true of their argument "no matter when": descriptions not tied to a timeline, like "{{x}} is/are intelligent". A {{t\|~~baq~~}} argument to such a predicate is interpreted as a general (but maybe not {{t\|tu}}-universal?) claim over the individuals of the kind: "cats are intelligent", i.e. (pretty much?) any cat is intelligent.		# '''Individual-level''' predicates are true of their argument "no matter when": descriptions not tied to a timeline, like "{{x}} is/are intelligent". A {{t\|báq}} argument to such a predicate is interpreted as a general (but maybe not {{t\|tú}}-universal?) claim over the individuals of the kind: "cats are intelligent", i.e. (pretty much?) any cat is intelligent.
	# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t\|~~baq~~}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t\|sa}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing".		# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t\|báq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t\|sá}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing".

	(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|~~baq~~ kảto}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)		(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t\|báq kảto}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

	~~== Binding ==~~

	Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t\|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref name=no-scope />, and does not bind a variable {{t\|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like {{t\|jí}} or {{t\|súq}}. It has also been proposed that {{t\|baq pỏq}} could bind {{t\|pỏq}} after all, so that a sentence like {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq}} could mean "People like themselves", just like {{t\|Chẻo chỏ baq shỉ pỏq}} does currently. The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.

	== The typical… ==		== The typical… ==
	{{t\|~~baq~~}} does not mean "the typical X" (and never has).<ref name="not-typical" /> Typicality is orthogonal to {{t\|~~baq~~}}:<ref name="orthogonal" /> you can call individual three-leaf clovers "typical", or say that {{t\|~~baq~~}} clover rarely has four leaves.		{{t\|báq}} does not mean "the typical X" (and never has).<ref name="not-typical" /> Typicality is orthogonal to {{t\|báq}}:<ref name="orthogonal" /> you can call individual three-leaf clovers "typical", or say that {{t\|báq}} clover rarely has four leaves.

	== External links ==		== External links ==
Line 55:		Line 51:
	You can use the first to say the second one, but only indirectly: "This table is the result of me manifesting table kind"		You can use the first to say the second one, but only indirectly: "This table is the result of me manifesting table kind"
	</poem>}}		</poem>}}
	~~</ref>~~

	~~<ref name="no-scope">~~
	~~https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236~~
	~~{{Transcript\|~~
	~~<blockquote>[[Hoaqgıo]]: I guess [{{t\|baq}}] doesn't create scope</blockquote>~~
	~~[[Hoemaı]]: No, it's a reference to a kind.~~
	}}
	</ref>		</ref>

Uakci: /* Binding */ add chẻo variant for completeness

2022-02-04T23:48:28Z

Binding: add chẻo variant for completeness

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 4 February 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	== Binding ==		== Binding ==

	Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t\|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref name=no-scope />, and does not bind a variable {{t\|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like {{t\|jí}} or {{t\|súq}}. It has also been proposed that {{t\|baq pỏq}} could bind {{t\|pỏq}} after all, so that a sentence like {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq}} could mean "People like themselves". The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.		Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t\|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref name=no-scope />, and does not bind a variable {{t\|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like {{t\|jí}} or {{t\|súq}}. It has also been proposed that {{t\|baq pỏq}} could bind {{t\|pỏq}} after all, so that a sentence like {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq}} could mean "People like themselves", just like {{t\|Chẻo chỏ baq shỉ pỏq}} does currently. The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.

	== The typical… ==		== The typical… ==

Laqme: typo

2021-10-22T13:35:08Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 22 October 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Toaq has a ~~quantieier~~, {{t\|baq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.		Toaq has a quantifier, {{t\|baq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.

	For example, {{t\|baq tủzy}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|sa tủzy}} "some soup" or {{t\|tu tủzy}} "all soup".		For example, {{t\|baq tủzy}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t\|sa tủzy}} "some soup" or {{t\|tu tủzy}} "all soup".

Uakci: update math, copy over quoted material, et cætera

2021-10-21T20:39:06Z

update math, copy over quoted material, et cætera

Show changes

Hoaqgio: Updated binding note to include the proposal where baq does bind a variable

2021-09-23T11:42:18Z

Updated binding note to include the proposal where baq does bind a variable

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 23 September 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==
	{{t\|baq rảı}} does not introduce a scope<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236</ref>, and does not bind a variable {{t\|ráı}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like '''jí''' or '''súq'''.

	When we fill an argument place with a {{t\|baq}}-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar)#Carlson_classes '''Carlson class'''] of the predicate with regards to that argument place.		When we fill an argument place with a {{t\|baq}}-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar)#Carlson_classes '''Carlson class'''] of the predicate with regards to that argument place.

Line 21:		Line 19:

	(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about '''baq kảtō''' is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)		(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about '''baq kảtō''' is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

			== Binding ==

			Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t\|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236</ref>, and does not bind a variable {{t\|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like '''jí''' or '''súq'''. It has also been proposed that {{t\|baq pỏq}} could bind {{t\|pỏq}} after all, so that a sentence like {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq}} could mean "People like themselves". The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t\|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.

	== The typical… ==		== The typical… ==

Laqme at 23:42, 15 September 2021

2021-09-15T23:42:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:42, 15 September 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <code>[∃s: Soup(s)] WillMake(i, s)</code>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518</ref>. So we say {{t\|bảı jí baq tủzȳ}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|sa tủzȳ}}.		* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <code>[∃s: Soup(s)] WillMake(i, s)</code>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518</ref>. So we say {{t\|bảı jí baq tủzȳ}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t\|sa tủzȳ}}.

	So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "___ makes something satisfying property ___" and "The kind satisfying property ___ is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|lî tủzȳ}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbāı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in ~~our vocabulary~~. It is ~~a bit~~ unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.		So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "___ makes something satisfying property ___" and "The kind satisfying property ___ is extinct", and then fill them with {{t\|lî tủzȳ}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t\|lıbāı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.

	== Semantics ==		== Semantics ==